1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to Defendant Commissioner of Seoul Regional Tax Office is revoked.

2...

1. The grounds for this part of the disposition are the same as the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The payment received by the executives and employees of the Plaintiff from G is not returned from G following the Plaintiff’s re-subcontracting of the construction cost, but merely the honorarium or investment amount paid by G as its own property.

In other words, the amount of KRW 195 million received by D, KRW 49 million received by F, and KRW 12 million received by E in 2009 and 2010,000 won paid by G as honorariums with the indication of audit on the subcontract of construction.

E The investment amount of KRW 320 million received in 201 and KRW 490 million received by B is the investment amount paid by G to operate a business.

Therefore, each of the dispositions stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “each of the dispositions in this case”) premised on the Plaintiff’s unre-subcontracting the construction cost as equal to the payment in this case is unlawful.

3. Determination

A. The Plaintiff re-subcontracted the construction contract between the Plaintiff and G with the original recipient (GS Construction, etc.) to G on September 2009, when the amount of the steel-frame construction work (hereinafter “I steel-frame construction”) to KRW 11.137 billion is equal to the contract amount of KRW 11.137 billion, and one of the steel-frame installation works (hereinafter “I steel-frame installation works”) was subcontracted to G around September 2009.

I The supply value of the I Aggregate Installation Work was KRW 580,3200,000 in the first place, but the supply value was thereafter increased to KRW 1.21 billion in the supply value ( KRW 1.33 billion in the supply value, including value-added tax).

B) The Plaintiff is the Iron Corporation (hereinafter “P9 Iron Corporation”) among J9-PJ Corporation ( July 2010 to July 201) from the original recipient.

A contract amount of KRW 43.987 billion shall be calculated on the basis of a contract amount of KRW 43.99 billion, and among them, steel frame installation works (hereinafter referred to as “P9 steel frame installation works”).

B re-subcontracted to G on August 2010.

P9. Steel installation works.